Developing productive partnerships with parents and carers
Parents and those who do the work of parents, such as grandparents and other carers (who will all be referred to as ‘parents’ throughout this chapter), are typically accorded a natural authority in children’s lives. Kendrick (2009) argues that parents’ authority derives from a place of love, responsibility and specific family knowledge; parents have to live with the consequences of decisions that are made regarding their children, and they have to witness over time the successes and failures of interventions in their children’s lives. Parents—and it is typically mothers who are the major contributors of parental care and advocacy in schools—are natural partners in the work of schools, and there is plentiful evidence to suggest that parental engagement is a critical factor in improving children’s learning outcomes (Pushor & Amendt 2018). Parents’ authority gives them a legitimate and critical place in school communities and at the decision-making table.
About This Chapter
Despite the key role that parents can play in schools, knowing how to work well with parents has not typically been a consistent feature of teachers’ pedagogy (Pushor 2015) or the teacher-education curriculum (Saltmarsh et al. 2015). For guidance about developing productive partnerships with parents in the 21st-century inclusive classroom, what is known more generally about positive parent–teacher partnerships can be a useful place to start. For example, Pushor (2015: 235) describes effective parent–teacher relationships as ‘side by side and reciprocal’ rather than ‘hierarchical and primarily unidirectional’; Willis (2016: 125) highlights the value of co-generative dialogues between teachers and parents, that is, engagement in ‘substantive conversations . . . while adopting an open disposition to the possibilities of learning from others’ views and ideas’; and Povey and colleagues (2016) conclude that a respectful and welcoming school environment is critical to effective parent engagement. When children are made particularly vulnerable, however, for reasons such as disability or English as a second language, working with parents might involve additional considerations.
This chapter will offer an insight into those additional considerations and a deeper understanding of parents’ experiences when their children have a disability. An appreciation of what it is like for families in these circumstances is critical to the quality of the relationship between parents and teachers (Hodge & Runswick-Cole 2018), and to the capacity of teachers to work sensitively and cooperatively with their parent partners. Using relevant research findings, the following sections will consider: (1) family systems and the impact of a child’s disability on the family; (2) parental experiences of partnerships with teachers when their children are more likely to experience educational exclusion; and (3) ways that teachers can develop positive partnerships with parents so that student engagement and learning in inclusive contexts will be enhanced. First, however, we will consider the legislation and policy pertinent to partnering with parents.
Australian Legislation and Policy on Parent–Teacher Engagement
In Australia, the development of parent–teacher partnerships is an important area of national education policy and a requirement for professional teacher accreditation. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008) acknowledges the shared responsibility of parents and teachers for the improvement of student outcomes. It clearly states that all Australian governments, in collaboration with schools, commit to the development of stronger partnerships between schools and parents as a means to enhance engagement and achievement for all students. The Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE; Cth) clarify and elaborate the legal obligations of educators towards persons with disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA; Cth). As part of the process for planning and providing reasonable adjustments to students with disability, educators are required to consult with students and/or their associate (typically a parent) to ensure that students with disability are educated on the same basis as students without disability. This presupposes that school staff members will inform parents of students with disability about their rights according to the DSE, to enable active parental participation in any decision-making about appropriate educational supports. The effectiveness of the process is also dependent upon how school staff members interpret the notion of ‘consult’. Sometimes this is mistakenly held to mean that school staff members direct parents on how to parent their child.
Apart from the national legislation, engagement with parents is recognised as one of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (Standard 7.3), which necessitates the development of teachers’ knowledge and implementation of ‘strategies for working effectively, sensitively and confidentially with parents/carers’ (AITSL 2018: n.p.). Additionally, in recognition of the value of building and sustaining strong family–school partnerships, the Australian government—in collaboration with national parent bodies and other key stakeholders—developed the Family–School Partnerships Framework (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2017) to be used as a national comprehensive resource for schools, parent groups and families interested in developing partnerships. The key dimensions of the framework can be used as guidelines for promoting parent engagement. The Australian Student Wellbeing Framework (Department of Education and Training 2018) is another recent national resource that considers building effective partnerships as one of the foundational elements to support student learning, safety and wellbeing. Among the recommended practices within the Australian Student Wellbeing Framework, schools are encouraged to proactively build collaborative relationships with families, including those from vulnerable groups (Department of Education and Training 2018). Features of collaborative partnerships include shared understandings, welcoming and inclusive relationships, and two-way reciprocal exchange of knowledge.
Parent–teacher engagement at state level
In alignment with the various national tools and frameworks for improving student learning and wellbeing, education authorities in different states have developed evidence-based frameworks to assist school staff with this multifaceted process. Given the well-documented impact of parent engagement on student learning and wellbeing, parent–teacher partnerships are one of the key elements in all these instruments.
Across the Victorian government school system, for example, staff members are encouraged to use the Framework for Improving Student Outcomes (Victoria State Government 2019), with community engagement in learning being one of the four statewide priorities of the improvement model. Parent involvement is one of the four dimensions within this priority area. Teachers are provided with a four-level continuum of practice (emerging, evolving, embedding and excelling level of proficiency) to help them improve communication and meaningful partnerships with parents.
In response to the Review of Education for Students with Disability in Queensland State Schools (Deloitte Access Economics 2017), the Department of Education in Queensland has developed the Parent and Community Engagement Framework (Department of Education 2018a) as a model to facilitate effective relationships between schools and the parents of all children. In this framework, developing effective communication, establishing quality partnerships with parents, involving parents in school decision-making and nurturing respectful relationships with parents are recognised as essential elements contributing to genuine parent engagement.
As part of the statewide Engaging Families project, the Department for Education in South Australia has developed a practice guide for working with families from pre-birth to eight years (Department for Education 2013). This partnership model includes a seven-step process for building relationships with parents. Free interactive online training in the model is provided for ongoing professional development.
Similar policy initiatives have been implemented in other states and territories in Australia over the last few years. As an example, in the New South Wales public-education system, parent–teacher partnerships have been identified as a means for promoting community participation. Another example is the Family Partnership Model developed by the Department of Education in Tasmania in response to the Improved Support for Students with Disability Ministerial Taskforce Report (Tasmanian Government 2015).
UK Legislation and Policy on Parent–Teacher Engagement
Elsewhere in the world, educational policymakers have also responded to the issue of parent–teacher partnerships. For example, several authors of this chapter report on the emergence of parent partnership as a persistent policy discourse in England. The term ‘parents as partners’ first emerged in 1978 with the publication of the Warnock Report (Department for Education and Science 1978: 150). The Warnock Report was also a key moment in the history of inclusive education, as it reflected a changing view that students with disability could be successfully included in regular education. Although the commitment to parent partnership was seemingly unequivocal in the Warnock Report (Department for Education and Science 1978), subsequent government policy and guidance have shown varying degrees of commitment to ‘equal’ partnership with parents.
For example, when England’s Department for Education published its first code of teaching practice for students with disability in 1994, the document included a designated section on partnership with parents. However, although parents’ views were regarded as ‘important’, parents were also characterised as having ‘anxieties’ (Department for Education 1994: 24). In other words, implicit in the 1994 document was the idea that teachers’ views were driven by rationality, whereas parents’ views were driven by anxiety. Such views clearly undermine the commitment to equal partnership. In 2001, a revised code of practice was published (Department for Education and Skills 2001), and a whole chapter was dedicated to partnership with parents. Again, a close reading of the revised document reveals ambivalence towards equal partnership, as parents were positioned as holding ‘key information’ rather than as being key decision-makers in their children’s education. Significantly, in the latest iteration of the code of practice (Department for Education & Department of Health 2015), there is no longer a chapter dedicated to parent partnership, although the document states that the views of parents must be taken into account. Not surprisingly, given the ambivalence towards partnership with parents in the policy documents, parent–teacher partnership remains a highly contested area in education in England (Hellawell 2017; Hodge & Runswick-Cole 2008).
It is clear that policies regarding parent–teacher partnerships are widespread but changeable. It is also clear that, although necessary and useful, policies alone have not guaranteed positive parent–teacher partnerships. Further to knowing policy, teachers must have some understanding of the experiences of parents if they are to work together in a meaningful way. In the following section, we begin our exploration of parents’ perspectives by looking at the impact on the family when a child has a disability.
Understanding Family Systems and the Impact of a Child’s Disability
Parents (and teachers) will vary in their capacity to partner with each other and their desire to do so (for example, due to different employment commitments, family situations, cultural backgrounds and feelings about schools). However, there are experiences that are common in families when one or more children has a disability, and these are likely to influence the parent–teacher relationship. In order to develop productive partnerships with parents, it is essential that teachers understand family systems and how the family life cycle is experienced when a child has a disability. This understanding forms the basis for effective communication, trust and respect within a partnership. Yet it is clear from Gilmore and Mann (2019) that teachers often fail to appreciate the perspectives of parents. Parents say that teachers have limited understanding of the ways in which families are affected when one or more of their children has a disability, and that they feel ‘buffeted’ by the school system and put into the ‘too-hard basket’. The aim of this section is to describe the potential impact of a child’s disability on the family life cycle.
Developmental stages and transitions in the family system
In Western societies, families go through a series of typical developmental stages as they progress from being childless adults, to parents, and then rearing their offspring through the stages of early and middle childhood into adolescence. These stages of the family life cycle are typically followed by ‘launching’ (Olson et al. 1984) the son or daughter into an independent adult life, after which parents typically enter a time of reduced parenting responsibilities. Developmental stages are separated by periods of transition that generally involve adjustment to somewhat different roles, responsibilities, tasks and expectations. Individuals are more vulnerable at these times of transition, with the potential for increased confusion, stress, anxiety and conflict (Seligman & Darling 2007). All families are unique, however, and while these developmental stages are typical, systemic differences such as family structure and cultural values are likely to impact on the family life cycle. Additionally, when a child has a disability, families are likely to face extra, unexpected or significant challenges associated with systems that can be unresponsive to their needs. When parenting a child with a disability, some stages may occur later or may require more intensive and extended support. For instance, the child may commence school at a later age than his or her typically developing peers, and ‘launching’ may, for some young adults with disability, be delayed or involve careful planning and ongoing parental involvement.
For most parents, the time of their child’s diagnosis is their first personal contact with disability. As they get to know their son or daughter and come to terms with raising their child in an ableist society, they may find that their life is turned upside-down, at least for a time (Bridle & Mann 2000). Therapy and medical interventions can play a large part in life when a child has a disability, and—unlike most other families—parents in these circumstances are more likely to have to work with professionals very early on, and to learn how to become advocates for their child.
The transition to school is a major event that can be particularly difficult and traumatic for parents who have a child with a disability. For example, decisions about school placements can be more complicated—particularly when parents hope for an inclusive-school enrolment—and their child’s relationships with peers can be harder to facilitate. At this time, a child’s disability may become more visible, and comparisons with same-age peers can raise parents’ fears about their child’s safety and acceptance (depending on how inclusive and welcoming the school is). The next stage of the family life cycle, adolescence, coincides with the transition to high school. Teenagers typically desire more autonomy, with less dependence on parents and closer connections with their peers. For young people with disability, some of these normative milestones may be more difficult to achieve. At this transition, many parents become increasingly aware of differences in the experiences and opportunities that their child has compared with others of the same age. Some will be distressed by the lack of opportunities and supports for their child to live more independently. Worries about the future can become more intense as the young person moves towards adulthood, particularly regarding how parents’ hopes and dreams for their sons and daughters will be fulfilled. Feelings of fear, worry and uncertainty might resurface periodically throughout the family life cycle, and will be more likely at times of transition. An urgent need for parents to plan, support and advocate for their child (and for others to partner with them in these endeavours) may also continue to re-emerge at different stages in the child’s life.
The impact of a child’s disability on the family
It is important to highlight that many families report positive effects of having a child with a disability, such as increased family cohesion and personal growth (Hastings 2016). Various factors increase a family’s adaptability and ability to cope with challenges and crises, including the resources that are available to them; the quality of the engagement they experience with professionals; their ‘dispositional optimism’, that is, their tendency to view life events positively rather than pessimistically (Blacher et al. 2013); and their beliefs about the meaning of disability (Durà-Vilà et al. 2010).
By contrast, parenting a child with a disability is experienced more negatively by others (in some cultural groups, for example, disability is believed to be a punishment for sins in a previous life), and for most families a child’s disability is associated with increased family stress. The factors that are most consistently associated with higher levels of family stress, and which can be attributed to exclusionary practices and a lack of available support, include excessive or chronic caregiving demands, challenging child behaviours and financial worries (Baker et al. 2002; Seligman & Darling 2007). Research also shows that families of a child with a disability tend to experience more health problems than other families (Gilson et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2017) and to have restricted or disrupted leisure and social activities such as outings and holidays. For families who already have risk factors, such as poverty and marital conflict, a lack of support for raising a child with a disability is likely to exacerbate existing levels of stress.
Of significance to the school years, family stress is likely to increase around times of transition when new tasks, schedules, routines and people are encountered and when new decisions need to be made (and this includes the transition from year to year, when parents must continually begin new partnerships with different teachers). A potentially major yet less recognised source of stress is ‘the seemingly endless burden of securing appropriate services and the frustrations engendered’ (Blacher et al. 2013: 169) from various service systems. This includes the frustrations associated with schools. Many parents indicate that there are increased complexities involved in the enrolment process when a child has a disability, and describe the particular stress associated with choosing and sustaining a regular school enrolment. The mother of a twelve-year-old girl with cerebral palsy described the process of enrolling in a new school as ‘enormous . . . it was like jumping through hoops’. When interviewed (Gilmore & Mann 2019), she became tearful as she recalled the experience: ‘I felt like I had to justify why my child should be there.’
Implications for teachers
It is critical for teachers to have some understanding of what life is like for families of children with disability, because they are not working with a child in isolation from the family. Parents of children with disability have many competing demands—more than most families of children without disability. It is also important for teachers to realise that many parents have had difficult and distressing experiences with other professionals in the past. Parents may have repeatedly heard bad news about their child’s weaknesses and problems, and, not surprisingly, they may respond to practitioner feedback with despair, frustration, anger or defensiveness (Turnbull et al. 2006). Arguably, one of the most important steps a teacher can take in developing positive partnerships with parents is to discover, nurture and celebrate a child’s abilities and strengths, as well as focus on the commonalities between the child and his or her peers rather than the differences. In a study of parents and teachers in regular schools (Gilmore & Mann 2019), the mother of an eleven-year-old boy with a developmental disorder described the sensitive feedback that she received from her son’s teachers: ‘They will always find something really nice and positive to say.’ By contrast, another mother said: ‘We don’t hear much from them unless something’s happened . . . they never ring up to say “gosh, your child’s so wonderful”.’ Other steps that can be taken to facilitate positive partnerships will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter, but first we will look at what parents have told us about their experiences of parent–teacher partnerships in an inclusive education context.
Parents’ Experiences of Partnerships with Teachers
The inclusive education literature tells us that collaboration is a critical feature of inclusion, yet research repeatedly describes the problematic nature of parent–teacher relationships when children have a disability (e.g. Love et al. 2017; Mann et al. 2015). Parents and teachers can have very different perspectives with regard to the implications of disability for schooling (Lalvani 2015) and also with regard to the partnering experience. Recognising that parents might think and feel differently to educators is a critical first step when developing positive partnerships, and while educators may not be able to fully understand a parent’s very individual and personal experiences, making a genuine commitment to listening to and engaging with parents’ thoughts and feelings will help them to connect (Hodge & Runswick-Cole 2018). This section of the chapter offers some insights into what it has been like for parents in their efforts to work with schools, although it must be remembered that not all families will have the same experiences. The focus of the following discussion is parents whose children have a disability, although these are not the only families for whom the parent–teacher relationship is critical (see, for example, the discussion on relationships with Indigenous parents in Trudgett et al. 2017).
Within special education, there is a long history of the knowledge and expertise of parents being largely disregarded. Parents have traditionally been positioned as empty vessels to be filled with the knowledge and expertise of trained teachers, who will demonstrate to them how to parent their child (Hodge 2006; Hornby 2011). So embedded is this view within our society that teachers are often unaware that this is a particular model of working that they have absorbed and adopted, often uncritically. In the experience of two of the authors (Hodge & Runswick-Cole 2008), when teachers are asked if they enable partnership with parents, they state that they do. When asked for an example of how this occurs, a teacher might report that they develop a program of learning for a student and then send a copy to the parent so they can carry out the activities at home. Receiving the copy of the program is the first engagement that parents have with it; they have not been enabled to play an active role in its development. Many of us will recognise this example of what Hornby (2011, citing Swap 1993) terms the ‘Transmission Model’ from our own practice or that of colleagues. In this model, the ‘expert’ practitioner brings the parent into the project of learning as a resource in order to imitate the practice of the teacher beyond school hours.
The Transmission Model is dependent upon teachers maintaining a ‘professional’ distance from parents that operates to sustain their status as expert. Many parents perceive education as a ‘closed shop’ and have described their frustrations at being left out of school decision-making and problem-solving—for example: ‘My knowledge on my daughter was not welcome or wanted’ (Gilmore & Mann 2019). Teachers appear as a closely networked collective of people who communicate together through a shared specific language that disadvantages and excludes parents (Gavrielidou-Tsielepi 2013; Hodge & Runswick-Cole 2008; Hodge & Wolstenholme 2016). The members of this closed shop are perceived as valuing their own contributions over those of parents (Hodge & Wolstenholme 2016). It would appear that for some parents, inclusive education policies have done little to change this. One parent in Fleming’s (2019) UK study into how parents experience relationships with school practitioners reflected on how ‘our LA [Local Authority]1 won’t put anything in the EHCP [Education, Health and Care Plan]2 if a parent says it but will if a teacher backs it up’. Similarly, in Queensland, reports from some parents indicate that their input is not yet regarded by teachers as valid: ‘But I have been saying that, and saying that, and it has never been listened to!’ (Gilmore & Mann 2019).
The fundamental problem with the Transmission Model is that it fails to recognise that parents are privileged with a breadth and depth of knowledge about their child that teachers can never come to acquire over the relatively short time that they spend with a child. Teachers bring with them knowledge of educational theory and methods of teaching, and often experience of enabling an extensive and diverse collection of children. Parents will be the experts on their particular child; they will know what motivates their child or turns them away from learning, which strategies of support are likely to be welcomed and which might be less well received by the child. They may well know, too, what their child’s aspirations are and who their child hopes to become. New codes of practice, both here in Australia and elsewhere, do not yet seem to be securing recognition of their expertise for all parents. One parent in Fleming’s (2019) UK research echoed the experiences of some other parents in the study when she found herself still calling for teachers to ‘trust me more and my knowledge of my child’.
If experiencing the current system in this way emerges as commonplace, then this raises the worrying concern that—in spite of changes to legislation and policy—it remains ‘still “more rhetoric than reality” about family and school working together as genuine [sic] partners’ (Christenson & Sheridan 2001: 181). It is clear from the research described here that parents can feel frustrated, excluded and unheard when attempting to work with schools. We know from research described elsewhere that they can feel distrustful of teachers (Scorgie & Sobsey 2017) and emotionally distressed by the process of advocating for an inclusive placement for their children (Mann 2016). What can be done with this understanding? We now look at the implications of these insights for the parent–teacher partnership and, in this final section of the chapter, consider ways in which positive and productive partnerships can be developed with parents.
How Schools can Develop Positive Partnerships with Parents to Benefit Student Engagement and Learning
If teachers are to be successful in their partnerships with parents, it is essential that they move away from the Transmission Model. They need to practise instead what Hornby (2011, developed from Swap 1993) terms the ‘Partnership Model’. In this model, there is greater equality between teacher and parent, with the particular knowledge, skills and expertise of each recognised, valued and enabled. Similarly, Marshall (2013) proposed that teacher–parent partnerships that successfully lead to benefits for student engagement and learning are dependent upon a small number of factors: collaborative problem-solving, shared responsibility and mutually agreed goals. We would rephrase the last of these to ‘mutually developed and agreed goals’. This then highlights the need for goals to be negotiated between teacher, student and parent in ways that enable each party to feel confident that their particular expertise and potential contribution is recognised and valued, and also informs the program of engagement and learning.
Research suggests that the critical element for the success of the Partnership Model is the quality of relationships between teachers and parents (Fleming 2019; Hodge & Runswick-Cole 2008). This will be dependent, in particular, on the degree to which the teacher commits to coming to know and understand what it means to the mother, father or carer to parent their child (Hodge & Runswick-Cole 2018). However, coming to know, understand and appreciate the experience of another is a complex process (Hodge & Runswick-Cole 2018). Few teachers are supported with developing the skills needed to become an effective partner. They may be used to directing parents on what to do and how to support their child’s learning, but they are not practised in really listening to parents, nor skilled in techniques for enabling parents to talk (Hornby 2011). This is a longstanding barrier to successful collaboration between teacher and parent, and whether new policies—for example, Queensland’s new Inclusive Education Policy (Department of Education 2018b) and the United Kingdom’s new Code of Practice (Department of Education & Department of Health 2015)—will have an impact on this remains to be seen. In Fleming’s (2019) inquiry, some parents continue to identify feeling a lack of equality within the relationship. They repeat long-heard calls for practitioners to provide the climate that enables parent/carers to have a voice and to communicate to parent/carers that their voice is equal; and for teachers to be more proactive and to take the initiative in developing communication with parents.
The experiences of other parents in Fleming’s (2019) study illustrate how positive the experience can be for student, parent and teacher when the modes and means of communication are clear, accessible and regularly practised: ‘We work collaboratively and have regular contact. They are easily reached via phone’ (Parent 3); ‘I have clear channels of communication with all teams involved in supporting my child. I feel that I am listened to, and that my child is supported in the appropriate way the vast majority of the time’ (Parent 4). These sentiments are echoed by Gilmore and Mann (2019), who also found examples of effective parent–teacher communication and the positive impact of this on student learning. One parent recounted her partnership with teachers, saying, ‘We are always involved if there are major changes. We have always worked cooperatively to get the best for [our child] and we are happy with that.’ These examples from the research illustrate how communication with parents about the everyday school experience of students needs to move on from the recording of these within the traditional home–school diary. Teachers should find out what parents want to know about and what they feel comfortable sharing themselves. Preferred modes of communication should be established, as well as how and when communication should occur. Many schools now make good use of a variety of social-media channels for those parents who welcome this. A single WhatsApp message with a photograph of their child doing an activity can be a lot more meaningful to and valued by parents than a list of ‘incidents’ starkly represented within a home–school diary.
Research by Pomerantz and colleagues (2007) illustrates how the most effective partnership is dependent upon schools developing their own policies and practices. Staff and parents can then take ownership of partnerships, and the fundamentals of good practice become embedded within the fabric of the school. As illustrated above, an essential component of this will be quality communication. To enable this, some staff members may need support with developing what Hornby (2011: 83) terms ‘competence in interpersonal skills’: learning to really listen to parents so that staff members come to understand and appreciate the individual experience of parenting. Embracing this will provide schools with the opportunity to promote the expertise of parents by enabling those who are able and willing to do so, to lead on and/or contribute to staff development. Local parent-support groups for children with disability are also great additional sources of expertise if required.
Partnerships will benefit, too, from teachers feeling freed from the pressure of being the ‘expert’ on every aspect of student development. A culture needs to be developed of whole-school acceptance and promotion of staff and parents learning together and from each other. As one parent observed: ‘The teachers and the leadership of the school, they are probably learners, too; they learn from everyday experiences and experiences they haven’t encountered’ (Gilmore & Mann 2019). Hornby (2011) highlights additional significant enablers of positive partnership. These include developing specific school policies on working collaboratively with parents, providing designated spaces for parents to use in school and making sure parents are influential contributors to the governance of the school. Hornby also argues that where communication takes place is important, too. For some families, a home visit might be appreciated if they feel uncomfortable within the school environment or it is difficult for them to access. Other parents may prefer to meet in school or at a neutral location. Hornby highlights, too, the diverse nature of parents and how positive partnership will embrace a variety of practices that can respond to particular cultural requirements.
Key Messages for Developing Productive Parent–Teacher Partnerships
As has already been established, student engagement and learning depend on successful parent–teacher partnerships. It is critical then that teachers pay attention to the ways in which they work with parents. Here, again, are the points for developing successful partnerships that have been considered in this chapter:
1. Value the expertise of parents:
• Parents have a central place in school communities—they are not visitors or ‘receptacles of teacher knowledge’, nor are they there just to implement teacher programs.
• Parents have a breadth and depth of knowledge and experience regarding their children that teachers are unlikely to have. Parents’ knowledge and experience are critical to the inclusive process.
• Equality between teacher and parent expertise is a feature of positive partnerships, with a particular focus on recognising, valuing and enabling parent knowledge, skills and experience.
2. Prioritise positive, good-quality relationships with parents:
• Positive partnerships require a commitment on the part of teachers to come to know and engage with the experiences and perspectives of parents.
• Being proactive in establishing effective communication will assist teachers to come to know parents’ experience and perspectives. This means:
– developing positive interpersonal skills;
– becoming skilled in listening to parents; and
– developing skills to help parents express their views.
• It is important to recognise that the experiences of many parents have led them to find following an inclusive pathway stressful and that teachers can contribute to that stress (e.g. by not listening to or acting on parents’ views).
• In response to the stress reported by parents, teachers can develop a positive school and classroom climate. Elements of this positive climate could include:
– developing trust between parents and teachers;
– creating a feeling of welcome—both parents and children feel they belong;
– establishing a feeling of safety—parents feeling that their child is safe and that it is safe to voice their perspectives; – flexibility—responding to diverse hopes, fears and capacities of parents; and
– recognising and celebrating children’s abilities and achievements.
3. Be open to working with parents and others:
• Teachers should be willing to be learners and to accept that they do not have to know it all. They should be willing to find out what they don’t know and/or to rely on parental knowledge and expertise.
• Teachers and parents share responsibility for children’s outcomes and for raising aspirations.
• Teachers and parents share responsibility for the development of educational goals and for problem-solving.
4. Build effective communication with parents:
• Regularly practise clear, accessible communication (e.g. quick, simple strategies such as the use of photographs and apps).
• Avoid or explain jargon.
• Be proactive—actively find out what parents want to know and what they are comfortable sharing.
• Work flexibly—find out about and use preferred modes of communication. This involves more strategies than just traditional home–school diaries. Consideration should be given to where communication takes place (and the power messages of the school environment).
• Be positive—don’t just communicate about big issues or when things go wrong. Stay solution-focused rather than problem-focused.
• Speak (and write) sensitively, and be considerate of the language that is used about the child.
5. Develop school policies and practices that support parent–teacher partnerships:
• Set aside designated school spaces for parents to use.
• Create a whole-school ‘learning culture’. Accept that everyone is learning together; no one must know it all—learn with and from each other.
• Parents contribute to the governance of the school.
• Parents contribute to staff development (e.g. local support groups).
Notes
1 The Local Authority in the United Kingdom is the local government body that is responsible for assessing the special educational needs of the children in its region.
2 The Education, Health and Care Plan is the formal setting out, in the United Kingdom, of the developmental and educational program and provision for a child with a disability.
References
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2018, Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, <www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/teach-documents/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf>
Baker, B.L., Blacher, J., Crnic, K. & Edelbrock, C., 2002, ‘Behavior problems and parenting stress in families of three-year-old children with and without developmental delays’, American Journal on Mental Retardation, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 433–44
Blacher, J., Baker, B.L. & Berkovitz, L.D., 2013, ‘Family perspectives on child intellectual disability: Views from the sunny side of the street’, in M.L. Wehmeyer (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Disability, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 166–81
Bridle, L. & Mann, G., 2000, Mixed Feelings: A parental perspective on early intervention, Paper presented at the National Conference of Early Childhood Intervention, Brisbane
Christenson, S.L. & Sheridan, S.M., 2001, Schools and Families: Creating essential connections for learning, New York, NY: Guilford Press
Deloitte Access Economics, 2017, Review of Education for Students with Disability in Queensland State Schools, Brisbane: Deloitte Access Economics, <https://education.qld.gov.au/student/Documents/disability-review-report.pdf>
Department for Education, 2013, A Practice Guide for Working with Parents from Pre-birth to 8 Years, Adelaide: Department for Education
Department for Education (UK), 1994, Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, London: Department for Education
Department for Education & Department of Health, 2015, Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0–25 Years, London: Department for Education & Department of Health
Department for Education and Science, 1978, Special Education Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People, London: Department for Education and Science
Department for Education and Skills, 2001, Special Educational Needs: Code of Practice, London: Department for Education and Skills
Department of Education, 2018a, Advancing Partnerships—Parent and Community Engagement Framework, Brisbane: Department of Education
—— 2018b, Inclusive Education Policy Statement, Brisbane: Department of Education
Department of Education and Training, 2018, The Australian Student Wellbeing Framework, Canberra: Department of Education and Training
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2017, Family–School Partnerships Framework: A Guide for Schools and Families, Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), Cth, <www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00023>
Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE), Cth, <www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2005L00767>
Durà-Vilà, G., Dein, S. & Hodes, M., 2010, ‘Children with intellectual disability: A gain not a loss: Parental beliefs and family life’, Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 171–84
Fleming, K., 2019, ‘Parental perspectives on parent/carer–practitioner relationships post SEND Code of Practice 2015’, PhD thesis, Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University
Gavrielidou-Tsielepi, E., 2013, ‘Research in policymaking in education’, in S. Symeonidou & K. Beauchamp-Pryor (eds), Purpose, Process and Future Direction of Disability Research, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 73–88
Gilmore, L. & Mann, G., 2019, ‘Barriers to positive parent–teacher partnerships: The views of parents and teachers in an inclusive education context’, Manuscript in preparation
Gilson, K.M., Davis, E., Johnson, S., Gains, J., Reddihough, D. & Williams, K., 2018, ‘Mental health care needs and preferences for mothers of children with a disability’, Child: Care, Health and Development, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 384–91
Hastings, R.P., 2016, ‘Do children with intellectual and developmental disabilities have a negative impact on other family members? The case for rejecting a negative narrative’, in R.M. Hodapp & D.J. Fidler (eds), International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities: Fifty years of research in intellectual and developmental disabilities, San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 165–94
Hellawell, B., 2017, ‘A review of parent–professional partnerships and some new obligations and concerns arising from the introduction of the SEND Code of Practice 2015’, British Journal of Special Education, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 411–30
Hodge, N., 2006, ‘Disabling families: How parents experience the process of diagnosing Autism Spectrum Disorders’, PhD thesis, Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University
Hodge, N. & Runswick-Cole, K., 2008, ‘Problematising parent–professional partnerships in education’, Disability & Society, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 637–47
—— 2018, ‘“You say . . . I hear . . .”: Epistemic gaps in practitioner–parent/carer talk’, in K. Runswick-Cole, T. Curran & K. Liddiard (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 537–55
Hodge, N. & Wolstenholme, C., 2016, ‘“I didn’t stand a chance”: How parents experience the exclusions appeal tribunal’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1297–309
Hornby, G., 2011, Parental Involvement in Childhood Education: Building effective school–family partnerships, New York, NY: Springer
Kendrick, M., 2009, Letting in the Light: Reflections on leadership, ethics and human services, Brisbane: Community Resource Unit
Lalvani, P., 2015, ‘Disability, stigma and otherness: Perspectives of parents and teachers’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 379–93
Lee, M.H., Park, C., Matthews, A.K. & Hsieh, K., 2017, ‘Differences in physical health and health behaviors between family caregivers of children with and without disabilities’, Disability and Health Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 565–70
Love, H.R., Zagona, A.L., Kurth, J.A. & Miller, A.L., 2017, ‘Parents’ experiences in educational decision making for children and youth with disabilities,’ Inclusion, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 158–72
Mann, G., 2016, ‘From here to there and back again: The story of a mother, her son, disability, and school choice’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 909–20
Mann, G., Cuskelly, M. & Moni, K., 2015, ‘Choosing a school: Parental decision-making when special schools are an option’, Disability & Society, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1413–27
Marshall, D., 2013, ‘Reviewing Barnardo’s Cygnet parent programme’ Unpublished MA thesis, Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), 2008, Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, <www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf>
Olson, D.H., McCubbin, H.I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M. & Wilson, M., 1984, One Thousand Families: A national survey, Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications
Pomerantz, E.M., Moorman, E.A. & Litwack, S.D., 2007, ‘The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 373–410
Povey, J., Campbell, A.K., Willis, L.-D., Haynes, M., Western, M., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E. & Pedde, C., 2016, ‘Engaging parents in schools and building parent–school partnerships: The role of school and parent organisation leadership’, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 79, pp. 128–41
Pushor, D., 2015, ‘Walking alongside: A pedagogy of working with parents and family in Canada’, in L. Orland-Barak & C.J. Craig (eds), International Teacher Education: Promising pedagogies (Part B), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 233–51
Pushor, D. & Amendt, T., 2018, ‘Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents’, School Leadership & Management, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 202–21
Saltmarsh, S., Barr, J. & Chapman, A., 2015, ‘Preparing for parents: How Australian teacher education is addressing the question of parent–school engagement’, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 69–84
Scorgie, K. & Sobsey, D., 2017, ‘So you think we can trust? (Re)building home–school collaboration with families of children with disability’, in K. Scorgie & D. Sobsey (eds), Working with Families for Inclusive Education: Navigating identity, opportunity and belonging, Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 255–71
Seligman, M. & Darling, R.B., 2007, Ordinary Families, Special Children: A systems approach to childhood disability, 3rd edn, New York, NY: Guilford Press
Swap, S.M., 1993, Developing Home–School Partnerships: From concepts to practice, New York, NY: Teachers College Press
Tasmanian Government, 2015, Improved Support for Students with Disability: Ministerial Taskforce Report, Hobart: Minister for Education and Training
Trudgett, M., Page, S., Bodkin-Andrews, G., Franklin, C. & Whittaker, A., 2017, ‘Another brick in the wall? Parent perceptions of school educational experiences of Indigenous Australian children’, in M. Walter, K.L. Martin & G. Bodkin-Andrews (eds), Indigenous Children Growing Up Strong: A longitudinal study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 233–58
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E. & Soodak, L., 2006, Families, Professionals, and Exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust, 5th edn, New York, NY: Pearson
Victoria State Government, 2019, Framework for Improving Student Outcomes, Melbourne: Department of Education and Training
Willis, L.-D., 2016, ‘Exploring cogenerativity for developing a coteaching community of practice in a parent–teacher engagement project,’ International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 80, pp. 124–33